Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(YouTube)   F-35B Ship Suitability Testing   (youtube.com ) divider line
    More: Cool  
•       •       •

7471 clicks; posted to Video » on 22 Jan 2013 at 7:21 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



91 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-01-22 02:26:59 AM  
Cool
 
2013-01-22 02:36:04 AM  
That is a cool plane!
 
2013-01-22 04:22:05 AM  
An absurdly expensive plane that has at least four remaining undiscovered nightmares. It's the F-111 all over again.
 
2013-01-22 07:24:26 AM  
Very cool.
 
2013-01-22 07:33:40 AM  
So as soon as China can rip this off they will be able to use leftover garbage barges for aircraft carriers, right?
 
2013-01-22 07:40:01 AM  
"This is Maverick requesting hover and stare."
 
2013-01-22 07:40:54 AM  
I'm the farthest thing from an aviation expert, but wouldn't it have made sense to have that top front hatch open to the rear? It seems like the way it is makes closing it after takeoff a lot harder. And a slight malfunction where it opens a bit during flight would rip it off.
 
2013-01-22 08:13:01 AM  

Bob The Nob: I'm the farthest thing from an aviation expert, but wouldn't it have made sense to have that top front hatch open to the rear? It seems like the way it is makes closing it after takeoff a lot harder. And a slight malfunction where it opens a bit during flight would rip it off.


You want as much air going into that fan as possible when it's in use. One alternative to opening front or rear is dual side opening, just like the bottom "hatch." They didn't choose it for a reason.

Anyone else find it interesting that the elevator goes to full down immediately after rotation?
 
2013-01-22 08:18:21 AM  
I notice there were no shots of it in full vertical take-off, so I assume it does not. This seems like a very expensive folly.
 
2013-01-22 08:26:34 AM  

Munchausen's Proxy: I notice there were no shots of it in full vertical take-off, so I assume it does not. This seems like a very expensive folly.


No, it's Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) by design, although it's probably capable of vertical takeoffs at low weights. Even the Harrier's mostly STOVL with combat loads, and it's had a long, successful career.
 
2013-01-22 08:49:13 AM  

fatbear:

Anyone else find it interesting that the elevator goes to full down immediately after rotation?


Yeah, I was noticing that there was a hell of a lot of nose down control input there. I'm trying to figure out if that's to counter a nose up rotation impulse from the front lift fan... but you would think the rear exhaust nozzle would do that...
 
2013-01-22 08:55:51 AM  
I can't believe the British government junked the greatest military plane ever designed to buy this piece of crap.
 
2013-01-22 08:56:59 AM  

fatbear: Bob The Nob: I'm the farthest thing from an aviation expert, but wouldn't it have made sense to have that top front hatch open to the rear? It seems like the way it is makes closing it after takeoff a lot harder. And a slight malfunction where it opens a bit during flight would rip it off.

You want as much air going into that fan as possible when it's in use. One alternative to opening front or rear is dual side opening, just like the bottom "hatch." They didn't choose it for a reason.

Anyone else find it interesting that the elevator goes to full down immediately after rotation?




Yeah, noticed that, too. I have to think it's to increase overall camber when in that mode of flight, rather than to induce a nose-down pitch moment. I'm sure the lift fan provides a fair amount of nose-up, anyway.
 
2013-01-22 09:08:55 AM  

Wise_Guy: "This is Maverick requesting hover and stare."


Negative, the pattern is full.
 
2013-01-22 09:14:44 AM  

Charlie Freak: fatbear: Bob The Nob: I'm the farthest thing from an aviation expert, but wouldn't it have made sense to have that top front hatch open to the rear? It seems like the way it is makes closing it after takeoff a lot harder. And a slight malfunction where it opens a bit during flight would rip it off.

You want as much air going into that fan as possible when it's in use. One alternative to opening front or rear is dual side opening, just like the bottom "hatch." They didn't choose it for a reason.

Anyone else find it interesting that the elevator goes to full down immediately after rotation?

Yeah, noticed that, too. I have to think it's to increase overall camber when in that mode of flight, rather than to induce a nose-down pitch moment. I'm sure the lift fan provides a fair amount of nose-up, anyway.


The fan cover is probably providing a good bit of nose up drag too.
Without the deck under the rear wheels, I'd suspect the computer is responding to the tail suddenly dropping while still below flight speeds.
 
2013-01-22 09:46:03 AM  
It cost $400 billion to develop, and each plane costs $150 million. And get this: It's still a piece of flawed sh*t funded entirely with taxpayer money. You can guess which party of "responsible government" pushed this through.
 
2013-01-22 10:12:00 AM  
That thing wasn't using a catapult to launch, was it?

The 35 seems kind of lame at first, but then you realize it replaces about 4 different models of aircraft. It does the STOVL like a Harrier. It can do the stealth surgical strikes like a F-117. It can do the fighter-bomber role like the F-15 and F/A-18. It may even take over the A-10's role in a decade or two. Taking those older aircraft out of service helps mitigate the cost of the beast. And it's intended to stay in service until about 2050. It may be expensive in 2013 dollars, but it's a bargain in 2050 dollars.
 
2013-01-22 10:13:32 AM  

REO-Weedwagon: You can guess which party of "responsible government" pushed this through.


Considering that it's been in development since 1996, I'm going to go with "What is both parties?" for $200, Alex.

Nice try, troll. 2/10.
 
2013-01-22 10:15:45 AM  

cgraves67: It may even take over the A-10's role in a decade or two.


Not Likely.
 
2013-01-22 10:18:17 AM  

REO-Weedwagon: It cost $400 billion to develop, and each plane costs $150 million. And get this: It's still a piece of flawed sh*t funded entirely with taxpayer money. You can guess which party of "responsible government" pushed this through.


So what should we build instead?
 
2013-01-22 10:19:06 AM  

fatbear: cgraves67: It may even take over the A-10's role in a decade or two.

Not Likely.


True. It's intended to take it over, but the A-10 does its thing so well, it will probably not be replaced until some one proposes a dedicated, fixed wing ground attack drone.
 
2013-01-22 10:28:42 AM  
Well I'll be damned, the ugly bastard can hover.
 
2013-01-22 10:32:54 AM  

cgraves67: fatbear: cgraves67: It may even take over the A-10's role in a decade or two.

Not Likely.

True. It's intended to take it over, but the A-10 does its thing so well, it will probably not be replaced until some one proposes a dedicated, fixed wing ground attack drone.


Even then, having a real pair of human eyes up there and on-site human decision-making power trumps any current or developmental drone technology. Cameras suck, especially over data connections with bandwidth low enough to be robust in a battlefield.

Unless the next generation of drones is going to have biomechanical raptor eyes in it, or something, the Hog driver has job security.
 
2013-01-22 10:33:08 AM  

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: Well I'll be damned, the ugly bastard can hover.


Since almost 3 years ago...
 
2013-01-22 10:35:28 AM  

Old_Chief_Scott: REO-Weedwagon: It cost $400 billion to develop, and each plane costs $150 million. And get this: It's still a piece of flawed sh*t funded entirely with taxpayer money. You can guess which party of "responsible government" pushed this through.

So what should we build instead?


You don't need to build anything. You already conned us into selling out fleet of Harriers in 2010 to use as spare parts for your Harriers - a plane that still works and doesn't need replacing.

Meanwhile we have no aircraft for our new aircraft carriers until we get delivery of our F-35's in 2020.
 
2013-01-22 10:37:31 AM  

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy:

Even then, having a real pair of human eyes up there and on-site human decision-making power trumps any current or developmental drone technology. Cameras suck, especially over data connections with bandwidth low enough to be robust in a battlefield.

Unless the next generation of drones is going to have biomechanical raptor eyes in it, or something, the Hog driver has job security.


Because we all know bandwidth is unlikely to improve. ;)

Seriously - drones will move from today's technology (like flying while looking through a periscope) to fully immersive full-motion controllers. Unless you like to play in traffic, it will happen in your lifetime.

I'd say anyone flying a hog today has job security, but I wouldn't plan on it as a long-term career if i wasn't already in the cockpit.
 
2013-01-22 10:39:41 AM  

inert: Old_Chief_Scott: REO-Weedwagon: It cost $400 billion to develop, and each plane costs $150 million. And get this: It's still a piece of flawed sh*t funded entirely with taxpayer money. You can guess which party of "responsible government" pushed this through.

So what should we build instead?

You don't need to build anything. You already conned us into selling out fleet of Harriers in 2010 to use as spare parts for your Harriers - a plane that still works and doesn't need replacing.

Meanwhile we have no aircraft for our new aircraft carriers until we get delivery of our F-35's in 2020.


How is this possibly  my fault?
 
2013-01-22 10:41:38 AM  

cgraves67: That thing wasn't using a catapult to launch, was it?

The 35 seems kind of lame at first, but then you realize it replaces about 4 different models of aircraft. It does the STOVL like a Harrier. It can do the stealth surgical strikes like a F-117. It can do the fighter-bomber role like the F-15 and F/A-18. It may even take over the A-10's role in a decade or two. Taking those older aircraft out of service helps mitigate the cost of the beast. And it's intended to stay in service until about 2050. It may be expensive in 2013 dollars, but it's a bargain in 2050 dollars.


In order to replace 4 different planes that means it is mediocre to sub par to do each job. The plane also has a bunch of critical issues, especially the navy version. An under powered engine and a tail hook that is too short. May seem like small fixes but the tail hook issue would require a complete design and the engine problem will not be fixed because they just cancelled the development of a second engine.
 
2013-01-22 10:43:29 AM  

vossiewulf: An absurdly expensive plane that has at least four remaining undiscovered nightmares. It's the F-111 all over again.


It's three times the cost of a Super Hornet with the sole advantage of low radar visibility from the front and the ability to land vertically as long as all the weapons and fuel are depleted sufficiently.

Your tax dollars at work!
 
2013-01-22 10:49:58 AM  
Was I suppossed to masterbate to that?
 
2013-01-22 10:52:35 AM  

Old_Chief_Scott: inert: Old_Chief_Scott: REO-Weedwagon: It cost $400 billion to develop, and each plane costs $150 million. And get this: It's still a piece of flawed sh*t funded entirely with taxpayer money. You can guess which party of "responsible government" pushed this through.

So what should we build instead?

You don't need to build anything. You already conned us into selling out fleet of Harriers in 2010 to use as spare parts for your Harriers - a plane that still works and doesn't need replacing.

Meanwhile we have no aircraft for our new aircraft carriers until we get delivery of our F-35's in 2020.

How is this possibly  my fault?


Ah, when you typed "what should we build instead" I thought you were talking about the US military and not what you yourself should personally build instead. Sorry for the confusion.

Maybe you could build some kind of hovercraft?
 
2013-01-22 10:57:39 AM  
All I thought watching that was there is a lot of hydraulic doors and machinery to go wrong on that bird. One magic BB and you're in a world of "Okay, now what?"
 
2013-01-22 11:01:30 AM  
Seeing that makes me want to bring democracy to someone
 
2013-01-22 11:01:30 AM  

inert:

Maybe you could build some kind of hovercraft?


Excellent suggestion!
 
2013-01-22 11:01:37 AM  

REO-Weedwagon: It cost $400 billion to develop, and each plane costs $150 million. And get this: It's still a piece of flawed sh*t funded entirely with taxpayer money. You can guess which party of "responsible government" pushed this through.


From what I have read about it, it doesn't do anything well. Mediocre at best at everything it does. Sounds like a winning plan for the future to me.
 
2013-01-22 11:04:25 AM  
I watched this with the Yakety Sax loop going from the Benny Hill thread.

Try it. It's funny.
 
2013-01-22 11:17:02 AM  
Here are the known flaws right now.

1) Even though the F35 is called the "Lightning", it can't actually fly near thunderstorms because real lightning can make the fuel tank explode.
2) It can't descend rapidly to low altitudes because of a design flaw, something the Pentagon called, "unacceptable for combat or combat training."
3) In an effort to decrease its weight, it has become more vulnerable in a dogfight situation.
4) An alarming number of the planes have cracking on the right wing and right engine.

The individual cost of each plane is initially $150, but after these necessary re-designs and repairs, each plane will be closer to $250 million. The entire program will cost a total of $1.5 trillion in taxpayer money payed directly to Lockheed Martin and the politicians they own.
 
2013-01-22 11:17:44 AM  

vossiewulf: An absurdly expensive plane that has at least four remaining undiscovered nightmares. It's the F-111 all over again.


Hey, we have to take the steps to some Battlestar Galactica starship shiat somehow.

catsfish: I watched this with the Yakety Sax loop going from the Benny Hill thread.

Try it. It's funny.


They should play that over the loudspeaker on the carrier deck 24/7.
 
2013-01-22 11:34:02 AM  

REO-Weedwagon: Here are the known flaws right now.

1) Even though the F35 is called the "Lightning", it can't actually fly near thunderstorms because real lightning can make the fuel tank explode.
2) It can't descend rapidly to low altitudes because of a design flaw, something the Pentagon called, "unacceptable for combat or combat training."
3) In an effort to decrease its weight, it has become more vulnerable in a dogfight situation.
4) An alarming number of the planes have cracking on the right wing and right engine.

The individual cost of each plane is initially $150, but after these necessary re-designs and repairs, each plane will be closer to $250 million. The entire program will cost a total of $1.5 trillion in taxpayer money payed directly to Lockheed Martin and the politicians they own.


And parts suppliers, avionics companies, etc. plus all the people employed at those companies.
 
2013-01-22 11:34:17 AM  

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: cgraves67: fatbear: cgraves67: It may even take over the A-10's role in a decade or two.

Not Likely.

True. It's intended to take it over, but the A-10 does its thing so well, it will probably not be replaced until some one proposes a dedicated, fixed wing ground attack drone.

Even then, having a real pair of human eyes up there and on-site human decision-making power trumps any current or developmental drone technology. Cameras suck, especially over data connections with bandwidth low enough to be robust in a battlefield.

Unless the next generation of drones is going to have biomechanical raptor eyes in it, or something, the Hog driver has job security.


This. Expecially since it can survive in the battlespace with a significant amount of damage. The A-10C is the best thing next to the Apache/Cobra choppers the ground troops have for CAS today.
 
2013-01-22 12:07:13 PM  

summersa74:
The individual cost of each plane is initially $150, but after these necessary re-designs and repairs, each plane will be closer to $250 million. The entire program will cost a total of $1.5 trillion in taxpayer money payed directly to Lockheed Martin and the politicians they own.

And parts suppliers, avionics companies, etc. plus all the people employed at those companies.


Step 1: Find a poor county that needs jobs. Demand huge tax breaks from the county and state for refurbing or building a new plant that makes widgets for your multi-billion dollar defense boondoggle.

Step 2: Remind the congressman whose district you've just built in that if she cancels the boondoggle, her constituents will lose the widget-making jobs. Repeat 435 times.

Step 3: Profit. Lots and lots of profit.

Lockheed has done it better than almost anyone.
 
2013-01-22 12:24:37 PM  
Seems like one fat pig of a plane. THAT's our air superiority fighter?

Launching with that giant air scoop was intentional. They could have had double doors with hinges on the sides that don't interfere with the slipstream at all, but obviously what they wanted was for that engine to suck in the entire sky at once and blow it out the bottom of the plane.

And it still can't VTO.
 
2013-01-22 12:31:54 PM  
That was pretty bad ass. Nice vid subby. Would love to fly one of those.
 
2013-01-22 12:40:51 PM  

MoistenedBint: All I thought watching that was there is a lot of hydraulic doors and machinery to go wrong on that bird. One magic BB and you're in a world of "Okay, now what?"


Bingo. That's one high maintenance bird
 
2013-01-22 01:16:32 PM  

studebaker hoch: Seems like one fat pig of a plane. THAT's our air superiority fighter?


And it still can't VTO.


Actually, it's nimble as fark in flight. Looks aren't everything.

But you're right - why bother with only half of VTOL? The value of landing vertically on a 79x79 steel pad is greatly diminished if you can't refuel, rearm and depart from the same place.
 
2013-01-22 01:25:16 PM  
This documentary is relevant:
NOVA: Battle of the X-Planes
 
2013-01-22 01:31:32 PM  

cgraves67: That thing wasn't using a catapult to launch, was it?

The 35 seems kind of lame at first, but then you realize it replaces about 4 different models of aircraft. It does the STOVL like a Harrier. It can do the stealth surgical strikes like a F-117. It can do the fighter-bomber role like the F-15 and F/A-18. It may even take over the A-10's role in a decade or two. Taking those older aircraft out of service helps mitigate the cost of the beast. And it's intended to stay in service until about 2050. It may be expensive in 2013 dollars, but it's a bargain in 2050 dollars.


You might want to check your math. Those "older aircraft" are super cheap to operate. Who can argue with a few thousand a hour to operate and comparable ammunition costs vs 10x per flight hour and 10-100x ammunition costs. Not even brining into scope the orders of magnitude more it cost in R&D and per unit for the F-35.
 
2013-01-22 01:33:20 PM  

tzzhc4: cgraves67: That thing wasn't using a catapult to launch, was it?

The 35 seems kind of lame at first, but then you realize it replaces about 4 different models of aircraft. It does the STOVL like a Harrier. It can do the stealth surgical strikes like a F-117. It can do the fighter-bomber role like the F-15 and F/A-18. It may even take over the A-10's role in a decade or two. Taking those older aircraft out of service helps mitigate the cost of the beast. And it's intended to stay in service until about 2050. It may be expensive in 2013 dollars, but it's a bargain in 2050 dollars.

You might want to check your math. Those "older aircraft" are super cheap to operate. Who can argue with a few thousand a hour to operate and comparable ammunition costs vs 10x per flight hour and 10-100x ammunition costs. Not even brining into scope the orders of magnitude more it cost in R&D and per unit for the F-35.


and costs to modernize and update their avionics and weapons systems costs nothing?
 
2013-01-22 01:33:32 PM  

fatbear:
You want as much air going into that fan as possible when it's in use. One alternative to opening front or rear is dual side opening, just like the bottom "hatch." They didn't choose it for a reason.


If you look about 3:30 into the video I posted above, you'll see that they did have side-opening doors for the top fan cover at one point. IIRC there were also issues with exhaust getting circulated back into the fan in low hover situations and totally killing lift. Can't remember if the doors had anything to do with it. It's been a while since I watched this documentary.
 
2013-01-22 01:58:16 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: vossiewulf: An absurdly expensive plane that has at least four remaining undiscovered nightmares. It's the F-111 all over again.

It's three times the cost of a Super Hornet with the sole advantage of low radar visibility from the front and the ability to land vertically as long as all the weapons and fuel are depleted sufficiently.

Your tax dollars at work!


But we need to spend it on fighter jets or else it might go to feeding poor people or paying teachers or extending health care to everyone or some other commie BS.
 
Displayed 50 of 91 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report